[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2017-November-25, 10:46, said:

This topic was done to death on Bridge winners. On BBO, Diana_Eva and Barmar seem intolerant, only of posts with which they disagree or which they perceive as racist.

As usual in national competition disputes, the Bridgewinners discussion had little to do with Bridge rules or natural justice. For the most part it divided on passionate chauvinistic and patriotic lines.

Show me your work Nigel...

If you're going to make charges like this then you must have done a break down of the nationalities of the various posters in the thread and what "side" they took...
So show me you $&)@^ work is is this just another one of those many occasions when you're making unsubstantiated claims about how unfair the world is.

Let's start with something simple...

I'm from the United States AND I am a friend of Justin's
Which of your two overly simplistic camps do I fall into???

[steve2005]

 nige1, on 2017-November-25, 10:46, said:

As soon as they deemed that there was adequate evidence for their suspicions, they asked for a ruling. .

Spain waited till match started surely they knew info 20 hours before when lineup posted and probably before tournament started.
Spain asked to have a pair removed from match not for a ruling. Is this even possible?

Spain said pair opened all 3rd seat NV hands. Amongst other things people pointed out that would be brown sticker and not allowed in this tournament.

[bid_em_up]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-25, 08:14, said:

It is useful to distinguish between regulations and conditions of contest like the ones the ACBL has in place and the actual laws of the game which do not ban psyching conventional bids.

I could, but it's really to much to type on mobile, and there's always some self serving prick that's always too happy to point it out.

[Vampyr]

 The_Badger, on 2017-November-25, 04:24, said:

Given that the 1♦ bid in Precision is quite nebulous these days, ranging from 1+♦, it is conventional too, just in the same way a 1♣ bid is.

There's an easy way to rule this, I feel, that any bid without the requisite point count and a suit of 4+ cards (or 3 cards with possibly two top honours) is psyche territory; anything else is negotiably acceptable.

These two sentences contradict each other. You seem to be suggesting that eg a Precision 1♦ opener is a psyche if it has only the minimum number of diamond permitted (eg o) and 11-15 points.

[hrothgar]

 bid_em_up, on 2017-November-25, 12:48, said:

I could, but it's really to much to type on mobile, and there's always some self serving prick that's always too happy to point it out.

Sorry.

Most of consider it more important to not be thought ignorant and don't succumb to the need to knowingly post erroneous information.

Guess your standards are different...

[bid_em_up]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-25, 13:08, said:

Sorry.

Most of consider it more important to not be thought ignorant and don't succumb to the need to knowingly post erroneous information.

Guess your standards are different...

Sorry.

Most of us consider it more important to not be thought to be a douche and know how to read the intent of a post without quibbling about how it's worded or if it meets our own individual standards.

Guess your standards are different...

Some things never change.

[nige1]

 steve2005, on 2017-November-25, 11:20, said:

Spain waited till match started surely they knew info 20 hours before when lineup posted and probably before tournament started. Spain asked to have a pair removed from match not for a ruling. Is this even possible?

Spain said pair opened all 3rd seat NV hands. Amongst other things people pointed out that would be brown sticker and not allowed in this tournament.

My information is from on-line threads. The American version differed from the Spanish version. The result was that the US pair were exonerated.

[Vampyr]

 bid_em_up, on 2017-November-25, 14:12, said:

Sorry.

Most of us consider it more important to not be thought to be a douche and know how to read the intent of a post without quibbling about how it's worded or if it meets our own individual standards.

Guess your standards are different...

Some things never change.

But why cite an ACBL regulation in response to an example given by a poster who was clearly not in the ACBL? And why refer to it as part of the laws? This will misinform readers who don't know better. Also if you had bothered to read the thread you might have noticed that the ACBL regulation had already been mentioned.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2017-November-25, 21:21, said:

My information is from on-line threads. The American version differed from the Spanish version. The result was that the US pair were exonerated.

So what you're saying is that you didn't bother to do any analysis... Hardly surprising.

FWIW, I don't disagree that some American's supported the US team, just as some Spainyards supported that of Spain. However, there are all sorts of counter examples as well.

As for your claim that the US pair was exonerated because the "American version" differed from the Spanish version...

I am having trouble even parsing what you are trying to say.

Do you mean the American team? - Its unsurprising that they have a different version of events than the Spanish team?
Do you mean the Americans posting on the thread? (Which is what was originally being discussed) - Why does their opinion matter?

From my own perspective, the reason that the claim was adjudicated the way it was was two fold.

1. The Spanish were extremely sloppy in collecting evidence. If you are going to play these types of games you need to do your homework. In this case the Spanish data set was way too small to draw a meaningful conclusion about rare events and folks were quickly able to find counter examples

2. When push came to shove, the Spanish were unwilling to forfeit the match and instead returned to the table

[msjennifer]

 gordontd, on 2017-November-24, 05:45, said:

It's not allowed under the WBF or under the EBU but I don't know about other jurisdictions. But the important thing is whether or not it is by agreement (explicit or implicit), since you always have the right to depart from your agreements. If the pair in question had an agreed sound opening style, then opening this 1D would be a clear psyche and permissible. On the other hand if they had the agreement that they open very light, and the partner of this player seemed to consider it within the range of their opening bids, then it would be considered to be by agreement and not permissible under the regs of the WBF, EBU and I suspect most other RAs.

Sir,I fully agree with you.And I hope there should be no problem for the TD in dealing with such instances if a strict enforcement of zero tolerance is followed.

[hrothgar]

 msjennifer, on 2017-November-26, 13:16, said:

Sir,I fully agree with you.And I hope there should be no problem for the TD in dealing with such instances if a strict enforcement of zero tolerance is followed.

Unclear what this is supposed to mean.

What does "zero tolerance" have to do with psyches?

Even if there were some relationship between zero tolerance and psyches, what does a misbegotten ACBL specific ethics initiative have to do with bridge games in the rest of the world?

[blackshoe]

 steve2005, on 2017-November-24, 18:19, said:

I think your right but I could never get my head around this. No agreement legal. It happens you discuss the hand later. How can you now say you have no agreement. Are you not supposed to discuss hands? How often can this happen before there is an agreement?

If you discuss it, and you come to an understanding with your partner that either of you might open 1♦ with the given hand in third seat, then you have an illegal agreement. If you are an expert, think it's a good idea to open this hand 1♦ in third seat, and expect your expert partner to feel the same way, then you have an illegal partnership understanding. NB: in law, "partnership agreement" and "partnership understanding" are pretty much the same thing.

The question when an action reaches the level of partnership understanding based on frequency is not explicitly answered in law or regulation. People throw out ideas ranging from "you did it once, now you have an agreement" to "two times in a session" to "two times ever" to either of those replacing "two" with "three". None of these ideas make the grade. There is a guideline: "frequently enough that partner begins to expect it". In theory you could ask partner if he expected it, but can you trust the answer?* So in the end it comes down to the TD's judgement - which would be helped by knowledge of when the player has done this before - which is one of the purposes of Player Memos.

* I'm not saying a player would lie here, just that it's easy to convince yourself it was unexpected. People don't necessarily do that on purpose, it's just human nature.

[blackshoe]

 bid_em_up, on 2017-November-25, 07:41, said:

The problem with the 1C scenario is that pesky little "not allowed to psyche a conventional bid" part of the laws....

That is regulation, not law.

[blackshoe]

 The_Badger, on 2017-November-24, 06:30, said:

It's not a light opening, it's a psyche. I played Precision for many years, and I wouldn't have dreamed of opening 1♦ on a hand like this in 3rd even white/red. Just because 1♦ in Precision can mean a variety of things these days, usually without any reference to actually holding a ♦ suit, doesn't mean you can open a sub-minimum hand with a doubleton in the suit bid and not expect the director to be called.

If you opened the hand in SAYC, 2/1, Acol or other natural based systems, it would be classed as a psyche, so why should Precision be treated any differently just because it has some artificial openings?

If the hand had been ♠xxxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣AKxxx and it had been opened 2♣ in standard Precision showing 5♣ + 4M or 6+♣ then that's a light opening, in my view.

The definition of a psych is "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length." So whether something is a psych depends on the partnership's understanding of the meaning of the bid. If the understanding of 2♣ is "6 or more clubs, 10 to 15 points", then IMO holding five clubs is not a gross misstatement of suit length, nor is 7 HCP a gross misstatement of honor strength (although it's close). So I agree that opening 2♣ with your hand is not a psych. However, the same guides apply to the 1♦ on xxxx xxx xx AKxx. If the partnership understanding is "as few as two diamonds, 10 to 15 HCP, no better bid" or something similar, than the bidder has not grossly misstated his diamond length, and if he has grossly misstated his HCP, then he equally does so when he opens 2♣ with your hand. You can't have it both ways. Either neither opening is a psych, or both are.

If a pair have a partnership understanding that a one level opening bid could be made on fewer than 8 HCP, that is illegal by regulation in the ACBL. This does not apply to two level bids such as the Precision 2♣ opening.

I have, of late, been looking for a definition of "light" and "very light" wrt to opening bids (at any level). I have not found anything official. Best I can come up with is "if it's a point or two less than your normal minimum, it's light. Any more than that is very light." But that leaves open the question "what is your normal minimum?" You also, for one level openings, may butt up against the eight HCP minimum for allowable agreements. Wild distribution can cause problems too. If you have Axxxxx AJxxx x x, is a 1♠ opening in first or second seat light? Some I think would say it's very light. But if your agreement is "we open at the one level in first or second seat any hand with 21 1/2 'Klinger Points' NV or 22 'Klinger Points' V", well, this hand has 22 1/2 Klinger points (9 HCP + 11 "length points" + 2 QT + 1/2 for any one or more singletons or voids). So this is pretty close to a "normal minimum" - for some people anyway. Not very light, not even just light.

[bid_em_up]

 Vampyr, on 2017-November-26, 01:02, said:

But why cite an ACBL regulation in response to an example given by a poster who was clearly not in the ACBL? And why refer to it as part of the laws? This will misinform readers who don't know better. Also if you had bothered to read the thread you might have noticed that the ACBL regulation had already been mentioned.

I hate to break it to you, but it is practically impossible to define the word law without the regulations part being included in the definition by default. Most readers are likely capable of understanding that the two terms are interchangeable. Sorry that I didn't pick the one that met your satisfaction.

Also, if you had bothered to actually comprehend my post, I was pointing out that the regulation (law) regarding psyching 1C still applied, just like it did earlier in the thread when it was pointed out that the 1D psyche was prohibited, as both are conventional bids in precision.

I'm done here. This isn't worth wasting any more of my time on. No wonder there was recently a thread lamenting the lack of participation. Why would anyone want to do so for this nonsense?

[Vampyr]

 bid_em_up, on 2017-November-26, 22:57, said:

I hate to break it to you, but it is practically impossible to define the word law without the regulations part being included in the definition by default. Most readers are likely capable of understanding that the two terms are interchangeable. Sorry that I didn't pick the one that met your satisfaction.

Also, if you had bothered to actually comprehend my post, I was pointing out that the regulation (law) regarding psyching 1C still applied, just like it did earlier in the thread when it was pointed out that the 1D psyche was prohibited, as both are conventional bids in precision.

I'm done here. This isn't worth wasting any more of my time on. No wonder there was recently a thread lamenting the lack of participation. Why would anyone want to do so for this nonsense?

Why do you find it impossible to understand that an ACBL regulation is not a part of the laws, and as such does not apply in the rest of the world. The poster who mentioned the psyche of a strong 1♣ opener clearly indicates that he is based in England, where the ACBL prohibition does not apply.

So you see that law(worldwide) and regulation(local) are not interchangeable at all.

[gordontd]

 bid_em_up, on 2017-November-26, 22:57, said:

I hate to break it to you, but it is practically impossible to define the word law without the regulations part being included in the definition by default.

It's not.

 bid_em_up, on 2017-November-26, 22:57, said:

Most readers are likely capable of understanding that the two terms are interchangeable. Sorry that I didn't pick the one that met your satisfaction.

They aren't interchangeable. The Laws are universal, other regulations are not. That's why it matters.

 bid_em_up, on 2017-November-26, 22:57, said:

Also, if you had bothered to actually comprehend my post, I was pointing out that the regulation (law) regarding psyching 1C still applied, just like it did earlier in the thread when it was pointed out that the 1D psyche was prohibited, as both are conventional bids in precision.

I'm done here. This isn't worth wasting any more of my time on. No wonder there was recently a thread lamenting the lack of participation. Why would anyone want to do so for this nonsense?

There is a regulation in some jurisdictions, but not others, prohibiting psyching of artificial bids. If it were a law, which it is not, it would apply everywhere.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2017-November-26, 21:43, said:

I have, of late, been looking for a definition of "light" and "very light" wrt to opening bids (at any level). I have not found anything official.

My understanding is the ACBL treat -1 or -2 points as a deviation, with -3pts as psychic - so yes, 7hcp against an advertised strength of 10-15 is a "gross misstatement" of strength. On length, a difference of 1 card from the advertised length is a deviation, 2 cards difference represents a psyche. Other authorities have different ways of handling these matters.

"Very Light" only appears on the ACBL CC as far as I know, where it is defined as aggressive, light bidding "as a matter of course, not just now and then" on hands that most players would not, with an example given for a very light preempt of ♠92 ♥T ♦862 ♣Q876543. The question is then obviously what the minimum is for "most players". Presumably this is a moving level though, so what is "very light" now might not be in 10 years' time.

"Very light" also appears twice in the WBF guidelines for filling out a CC. There there is afaik no definition given but the context makes it clear that this should be taken to mean "much lighter than normal", for some reasonable definition or "normal" (the example given being responses to an opening bid of less than 3hcp).

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-November-27, 07:12, said:

"Very Light" only appears on the ACBL CC as far as I know, where it is defined as aggressive, light bidding "as a matter of course, not just now and then" on hands that most players would not, with an example given for a very light preempt of ♠92 ♥T ♦862 ♣Q876543. The question is then obviously what the minimum is for "most players". Presumably this is a moving level though, so what is "very light" now might not be in 10 years' time.

The latest / greatest incarnation of the ACBL Convention Charts (which have not yet been adopted) includes a section for Definitions.

Quote

11. Hand strength​:
a. “Weak”:​ A hand that contains less than Near Average Strength.
b. “Near Average Strength”​: A hand that has at least 8 HCP or meets the “Rule of
17”.
c. “Average Strength”​: A hand that has at least 10 HCP or meets the “Rule of 19”.
d. “Strong”:​ A hand that contains:
i. at least 15 HCP; or
ii. 14 HCP and meets the “Rule of 24”.
e. “Very Strong”:​ A hand that contains:
i. at least 20 HCP; or
ii. at least 14 HCP and is within one trick of game assuming suits break
evenly among the other hands.

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-27, 07:20, said:

The latest / greatest incarnation of the ACBL Convention Charts (which have not yet been adopted) includes a section for Definitions.

Thank you - I had not seen that. Looking over the definitions, I would suggest that, approximately, c might be considered light openings and b very light openings, even if not referred to that way directly.